The other side of the coin - 'screen' reviewing

[ATP]

I know that many of the members here are undertaking scriptwriting in their 'spare' time,after their day job. Those who are doing this full-time, might even moonlight as film reviewers - this would make a lot of sense.

It is to these that I address my dilemma.

Tonight, I saw on dvd the 1962 version of Lawrence of Arabia. I could sense its spectacle, marvel at its cinematography, and really appreciate the acting and script (some scenes are very, very good). But, I have to shake my head. It was only after reading other reviews that I could understand and appreciate LoA - the dimensions. My own opinion is shaped by this, in terms of how to look at the said film, and what makes it work or not.

But, I would have thought that I would 'get it' by now, and how to put the components of the film together in my mind. I'm not so sure.

I feel that I should be more 'switched on' in conceptually pulling a film
apart and putting it back together again. For a good appreciation, I think that one needs to have spent time watching a gazillion films across numerous genres, which I have done.

I am now thinking that this is not enough. Perhaps what is needed is to actually read books about filmmakers, filmmaking, production etc. to build on the knowledge of films seen to date.

Nevertheless, I felt that I should have 'latched onto' LoA. But I didn't.
Perhaps my current lifestyle eg. often staying up and working late into the early or not so early hours of the morning has some influence on why
I don't.

Or perhaps one really needs to switch this part of the brain on, when watching films. Am I 'missing it'? I can't figure out why. Any suggestions/ comments?

Thanks.

[zeprosnepsid]

I don't think you're missing it or anything. There are always going to be very well regarded films that you don't like or don't 'get' for one reason or another. But sometimes, to understand these things properly, you actually need to watch them a multiple of times. In a very good film, it's impossible to get everything the first time. There's just too much going on (the lighting, the staging, the performance, the editing). When I used to be a film reviewer I'd try to watch things more than once if I was trying to do a more in depth discussion of them. Especially foreign films with subtitles.

I really like reading real film criticism (not newspaper reviewers, but real critics). I find it significantly more helpful than any screenwriting book. Because they do break it down and tell you why it works. They explain the dimensions and how it was achieved. I particularly like David Bordwell, you can check out his blog: http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/index.php.

But this is why most film schools have a whole separate department for 'critical studies'. It's a different set of skills and they do expect you to watch things over and over again. There are a couple scenes in Lawrence of Arabia I've watched a dozen times in a row to understand. I broke down a whole scene as an exercise (actually to post here in that thread I started about scenes but I never did because I didn't think anyone would be interested but me <g>). David Bordwell has a blog post about actually counting film frames when it comes to examining the film. Now that's intense.

But at my film school they had three different majors -- Screenwriting, Production and Critical Studies. Because they do look at different aspects. But everyone in each program has to take some classes in the other ones because it's important to know how it all comes together.

Anyway, I think we're always learning =)

[Boo_Radley]

I know that many of the members here are undertaking scriptwriting in their 'spare' time,after their day job. Those who are doing this full-time, might even moonlight as film reviewers - this would make a lot of sense.

I was a staff reviewer for a genre-themed website for six years (even had some of my reviews quoted on DVDs -- go, me) and there were a great number of times I'd review a film generally perceived as a classic, only to find out I didn't like it. And it's staggering the amount of criticism a reviewer can get for not liking a film everyone else swears by.

Generally speaking, we watch films that appeal to us as individuals, and what appeals to us is the combination of story, theme, performance and dialogue. Citizen Kane: lots of folks say it's the greatest American movie ever made. When I watched it, it bored me to tears. I could appreciate some things about it -- visual symbolism, the "Rosebud" pay off -- but overall it just didn't interest me.

Like zep, when reviewing a film I'd watch it more than once, usually at least twice. The first time was for the experience itself; the second was to scrutinize its technical aspects such as screenplay, direction, cinematography, lighting, editing, sound, etc.

Just don't go questioning yourself if you don't like a film everyone else says is great. If you like it, you like it; if you don't, you don't. So long as your reasons make sense to you, that's all that matters.